To the Editor:
If you don’t read newspapers or watch local TV news, you might not know about the recent fining of First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker by the State’s Freedom of Information Commission.
This fine came as the result of her having been found guilty of violating the law, when she didn’t produce two incident reports and other related public records regarding an alleged sexual assault of a teenage intern by an EMT employed by the Old Lyme Ambulance Association.
This is only the third time in 20 years that the hearing officer involved has recommended a civil penalty. That rare penalty underscores the severity of the guilty finding because it involves hiding documents from the public that provide the only detailed description of the alleged incident.
Here are the facts:
- The two incident reports were submitted to Shoemaker on March 18, 2024, immediately after the alleged incident.
- The allegations included verbal sexual harassment and repeated unwanted touching of the teenager’s body and genitals.
- The EMT later resigned and walked free.
- There was an investigation by the State Police and the EMT was not charged.
- The documents were requested, based on Freedom of Information, from Shoemaker on March 28, 2024 and again on June 24, 2024 by the CT Examiner. The documents were not provided in response to those requests.
- In July of 2024, the CT Examiner filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford. The complaint argued that Shoemaker neglected to turn over the documents associated with the resignation of the 34-year-old EMT.
- It took a hearing by the State Freedom of Information Commission to reveal that those documents existed. This was 160 days after the request for the documents based on the Freedom of Information Act. That hearing occurred in December of 2024.
- Shoemaker’s only response has been: “I made a mistake.” Knowingly hiding or withholding such information from the public and from an investigation does not constitute an innocent mistake. It is a clear case of intentional, unlawful behavior and horrendous ethical judgment.
The facts here speak loudly for themselves:
1. The public trust given to Shoemaker was broken.
2. Ms. Shoemaker was disingenuous and intentional in her actions.
3. Ms. Shoemaker has been found guilty of violating the law.
The voters in Old Lyme should undoubtedly remove Ms. Shoemaker from office on or before November 5, 2025. The citizens of this town can’t support a town leader that protects sexual predators.
Anthony A. Corrao
Old Lyme, CT